MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changes in Conformation and Walk Kinematics of Suckling and Weanling Warmblood Foals

2007· dissertation· en· W15370846 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Faith Denham

Bibliographic record

VenueErgonomics · 2007
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarmbloodHockFemurHumerusAnatomyTibiaScapulaFoalWeanlingKinematicsOrthodonticsHorseMedicineBiologySurgeryVeterinary medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Defence Research and Development Canada--Toronto managed a collaborative team of designers, biomechanists, ergonomists and military stakeholders in the development of a new personal load carriage (LC) system for the Canadian Forces. Ergonomics design principles using objective measurement tools and user-centred feedback from soldiers were considered essential to system development. The purpose of this study was to provide a detailed report of contributions by biomechanical testing to the final design of the final Canadian LC system. The Load Carriage Simulator and Compliance Tester were used to test design iterations of: three fragmentation vests, seven tactical vests and three iterations of the backpack. Test data were compared to a data pool of seventeen previously tested systems. Results indicated that the objective measures helped the design team by: (1) quantifying and understanding the consequences of various design changes; (2) predicting soldiers' responses to design changes in skin contact pressure, force and relative motion; (3) objectively comparing design iterations to other systems; and (4) providing information quickly so that ideas and recommendations could be incorporated into the next design iteration. It was concluded that objective assessments added valuable information not easily interpreted from human trials. However, objective assessments cannot replace human trials for feedback on functionality and features.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueErgonomicsSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207